Green MP and human rights lawyer Golriz Ghahraman and her party learned a tough lesson this week about truth, honesty and spin.

Be upfront. Tell the truth. Don’t massage and carefully manipulate your image and public reputation when it ain’t entirely true.

The Greens thought they had stumbled across an angel on the side of good, sending bad men away. Not quite.

And what did we, the public, learn?

We learned these Greens are no better than the rest of the buggers despite an at times holier than thou outlook.

Truth is Ghahraman was happy to let it spread that she was a crusading international prosecutor. Sounded great, looked even better.

There was nothing wrong with what she did as a lawyer. Her problem was how some of what she did, defending people accused of horrendous crimes against humanity, was glossed over in her and her Green party spin.

No wonder her leader James Shaw said sorry this week for getting it wrong twice. Shaw, like the rest of us, assumed she was doing god’s work. You can’t blame him.

When he got it wrong, why didn’t Ghahraman fix it? Why didn’t she put The Guardian right three weeks ago when it made the same mistake? Why would she?

Truth is Ghahraman looks embarrassed to be defending those responsible for genocide. She looks embarrassed to have been on the side of defending some of the most evil war criminals this world has seen.

She wanted her role minimised because Rwanda was ugly.

It’s normal for people to downplay ugly things from their past, but it was handled poorly this week.

With all the ferrets and weasels trying to trip you up in Wellington it pays to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But, no, she should not resign as an MP.

No, this is not about defence lawyers.

Yes, this is about the truth. And her wrestling match with it.

Sadly she has shown a serious lack of contrition. She should have said sorry rather than been so offended by the expose.

If she learns anything from this we should see a better response from her.

One emailer told me this week I was attacking her because she’s a “woman with lovely brown Persian skin”.

What?

What indeed. Being attacked because the target of criticism is female or non-European or an immigrant or whatever has become common in New Zealand political forums, and it’s crap.

This is a simple little story. A very basic one. This is about being economical with the truth. This is about minimising the unsavoury and seemingly indefensible.

It’s a rookie mistake, not telling the full story. Let it be a lesson – and stop taking us for fools. We see bull…. a mile away.

It’s been a tough week for Ghahraman. If she learns well from it she will become a stronger politician and a better MP.

I haven’t seen much sign of lessons learnt yet from her or her supporters.

134 Comments

lurcher1948

REPOSTED from elsewhere earlier
As i posted yesterday Golriz Ghahraman is the latest target of the right but i stated the average Joe Blog in the street doesn’t care that she was on the defense team in Rwanda.They look at her, BRIGHT, articulate a young lawyer, an MP and then they look at the howling loons on the right baying for her blood(Farrar and Cam Slater ETC) or at least her resignation, NAH shes going on to be the co-leader of the greens i would say. but don’t quote me.

What a lot of spin. She’s at best loose with the truth, self promoting and vainglorious. At worst she a liar by omission.

She’s lost a hell of a lot of respect and they’ll be very cool within that very small Green caucus also. Keep her head low, show she’s learned a lesson, stop swinging from the trees shooting look at me and just get some work done.

artcroft

Missy

In general I would agree. This would not have dragged on if they put their hand up on day 1, said ‘yeah we worded the bio badly and can see how people think it was fudged, we will fix it’ then fixed it. It would have been a one day story if they had done that.

The big problem was how all the lefty activists etc piled in to social media making excuses for her, and deflecting the issue from a perceived cover up in her official bio information to something it is not (i.e.: the idea that the critics don’t believe in a war criminal being allowed a defence).

It was a basic error by the Greens, and it became a storm in a teacup.

Not the half truth – the cover up. And isn’t it interesting that as soon as anyone questions a politician of the Left the trolls emerge from everywhere and resort to attacking the messenger with all the “-isms”: race, gender etc etc… been an interesting exercise in watching a cover up go wrong…

Missy

Agree. They don’t understand it is the cover up that is the problem, not the truth – or (as you put it, and relevant in this case) – the half truth.

The left are very good at deflection from the issue, either through whataboutary or through throwing the ‘-ism’ words about. I thought NZ was bad at it, but they are basically amateurs in comparison to the UK when it comes to the deflection when criticising/questioning of the shining stars.

Missy

Blazer if you go back and read what I wrote previously you will perhaps comprehend on a further reading I was talking about the perceived Cover up.

In this case I was talking more generally, and I concede I was perhaps not specific enough.

However, there certainly was something that can be seen as a cover up, her work was misrepresented & the Greens and the left spent several days spinning and deflecting before James Shaw finally came out and admitted that they had not been completely honest. At best that is incompetence, but to many it looks like a cover up when it was not admitted to immediately.

Blazer

thanks for the link…
‘Whangarei lawyer and local Labour party candidate Kelly Ellis knew Sabin was under investigation, accused of child abuse, as did almost every Kiwi journalist and yet no one was game to call it for what it was; a coverup!’

Gee a local Labour candidate running down a National MP – what a surprise Blazer…. was he found guilty? Ahhh that would be no…. Anyway this thread is about Golriz not Sabin, so put your squirrel back where it belongs…

Blazer

chrism56

For once I agree with you Blazer. GG staying there will be a continuous demonstration of how tainted the Green brand has become. In the eyes of her acolytes, she can do no wrong – what the actual voters think is a different matter. Being caught out telling deliberate untruths like “prosecuting heads of state for the United Nations” makes Cunliffe’s creating Fonterra insignificant and look how that hounded him. beer. It will also be an easy meme to rubbish all and any statement she makes. That might not be fair, but it is politics.

Gezza

From her career trajectory, selfies, grandiose & cunningly misrepresented career role claims, ever-changing backstory, slick talking, & PR puff pieces, GG strikes me as someone who some considerable time ago decided she wants to a celebrity & has been simoly following one plan, then another, then politics as the best way to finally make it. Becoming a celebrity usually comes at a cost – intense & even hostile media scrutiny – & she’s not as clever as she thought she was – she didn’t figure on this.

chrism56

artcroft

The Greens are going to find working with Peters and being Govt big challenges to their principles. Compromise, misrepresentation, fudging, they’ll engage in all of it, and I suspect do it without any sense of compunction because “well … we’re the Greens and the ends justify the means”.

This is just a taster of the whoppers they are going to be selling so I’ll hold my ammo until then to make it really count.

adamsmith1922

No it was not. Being a defence lawyer is an honourable thing.
That was not the issue, the issue was the obfuscation, the way in which she was parsimonious with the facts and the embellishment of her role. In essence she big noted, was found our and then doubled down, thereby digging herself an even bigger hole. This is compounded by her role as the Greens justice spokesperson. Because her credibility is severely tarnished.

Kitty Catkin

If she had been honest and not tried to make her role in all those trials out to be something that it wasn’t. then it would indeed be ‘much ado about nothing,’

The hoohah has been, I think, because she wasn’t honest about it and tried to make herself seem like something that she is not.

Lawyers come in for a lot of undeserved flak, but in this case I think that it was deserved.

As an intern-which I believe that she was-surely she would do what she was ordered to do.So her boasting about what she did is meaningless-it would be like me implying that I was headhunted to be the researcher and ministerial document writer for the then Minister of Education when I was a clerk and did what I was told to do. Yes, I did research and wrote ministerials, but at a low level !

Blazer

Oh, will you let that drop ? Just as the people in the shop would have let the damned things drop into the nearest bin. Would you hand in a packet of chewing gum that someone had left in the packing area, or hand in a cigarette lighter that you found in the street ? Both of these were worth more than the eclairs-and are not perishable. Shops don’t & can’t put perishable things back.

You can be an awful bore.

Blazer

The other big fault of GG and the Greens in general is hypocrisy. They have criticized for behavior and actions that they themselves have done. Look at GG’s tweet against Mr Plunket.
If you want to set yourselves up as saints, you need a clean backstory.

lurcher1948

Sean Plunket was supporting a sexual predator, She was a defense lawyer, whats the connection? and as i said its a “lets get GG shes our first target” it’s going to be a long 9 years for the rabid right.

Missy

Lurcher a defence lawyer should be the first to acknowledge that someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. As Harvey Weinstein has not been found guilty in a court of law he remains an alleged sexual predator, so therefore she should have been more circumspect in her criticism of him. However, she took the lefty view that all men are guilty before proven innocent, in direct contradiction to our legal system.

Also, you should refer to him as an alleged sexual predator, so far there are only allegations against him, no proven case.

lurcher1948

Missy

Lurcher, have he been found guilty in a court of law (not on social media)? NAH he therefore remains INNOCENT until PROVEN Guilty. To think anything else goes against the fundamentals of our justice system.

Losing a job, and losing everything, and being charged is still not guilt until he is found guilty in a court of law.

If anything the Westminster sex scandal – and the wider investigation into politicians – has shown, vilifying someone on social media and in the MSM based on allegations that aren’t proven in a court of law can have devastating consequences.

Interesting that you think someone losing a job and possibly about to be charged is equal to guilt, though pretty typical of today’s modern lefty who chooses certain groups and takes all opportunities to demonise and ruin them – or those they see as their representatives – on social media, and eventually ruin their life, often with no conviction and no true justice.

PartisanZ

Ray

It seems Golriz Ghahraman has a problem with admitting to making mistakes, something most of us share but something she should work on if she hopes to succeed in politics.
I say this after scanning the “related” stories which show this is her third strike.

PartisanZ

I disagree Ray. By NOT admitting to making mistakes, unless circumstances force it beyond question, Ghahraman is emulating every other politician who hopes to or does succeed in politics. There’s plenty of wriggle-room left in this one, so she’s ‘on track’ so to speak …

robertguyton

Gezza

That’s just a relativity argument. Expected, but cuts no ice with me. Not since Metiria’s crash n burn. Early days. They haven’t been in government long enuff to have a track record relevant for comparison.

Missy

“Golriz Ghahraman and the Greens have taken a hammering this week. Some of the criticism has been justified and fair, some has been way over the top and unfair.

……..

There was nothing wrong with what she did as a lawyer. Her problem was how some of what she did, defending people accused of horrendous crimes against humanity, was glossed over in her and her Green party spin.”

I agree with this. I have very little time for Golriz Ghahraman from what little I have seen of her, but in this instance some of the criticism has been unjustified and unfair.

I have no issue with her defending a war criminal, or someone accused of genocide, I do have a problem with her – and her party – glossing over it and looking like they are fudging her previous employment.

I agree with you that this has been handled poorly this week, the Greens have got to up their game.

“One emailer told me this week I was attacking her because she’s a “woman with lovely brown Persian skin”.

What?”

“What indeed. Being attacked because the target of criticism is female or non-European or an immigrant or whatever has become common in New Zealand political forums, and it’s crap.”

This is not just common in NZ, around the world any criticism of a woman is labelled sexist or misogynistic, any criticism of a non-white person is labelled racism, any criticism of a Muslim or of Islam is labelled Islamaphobic and a lot of it is BS. It shuts down debate, and makes many too afraid to voice genuine criticism. If some of our MPs – or even the PM – are unable to be criticised without those doing the criticism being called sexist, or racist or whatever, then this will dilute the ability of anyone to hold them to account. To say that the criticism of Golriz Ghahraman is because she is a woman or Iranian is a form of censorship, it is a way of saying that she cannot be criticised as an MP, and it is not good for democracy.

I noticed the Standard post a couple of days ago on this (by Weka) was tagged with sexism and racism – clearly showing that Weka, as the author, felt that the criticism of her was not because she deserved criticism, but rather because she was an Iranian Woman.

sorethumb

“We learned these Greens are no better than the rest of the buggers despite an at times holier than thou outlook.”
Bullsh*t. There’s absolutely no comparing the mendacious, despicable behaviour from the likes of Key et al with anything The Green MPs have ever done. The Green Way is quite different from the appalling , murky, dirty rubbish we witnessed from National for 9 long, disgraceful years.
Cheers!

PartisanZ

The Green viciousness on many different levels that I and numerous others experienced during the election campaign doesn’t entirely support your contention IMHO Robert.

Example: Numerous quite unseemly “Vote Labour/Green” ‘hammerings’ on social media, along with shamelessly promoting the “wasted vote” fallacy while espousing ‘values’ and integrity as well. The Greens hatred for TOP was palpable.

The Green Party has become a political party machine in much the same way Greenpeace has become a Green/Peace Global Corporate … sometimes seen as more involved in hounding people for donations than doing anything much or anything new …

Don’t get me wrong, I did say “doesn’t entirely support” (above). It is as much an image problem as anything else. Consistency … and avoiding getting dragged into the quagmire of Westminster … which I note they don’t seem interested in reforming …?

phantom snowflake

My (jaundiced) view is that the Green Party are neoliberal capitalist urban cafe-dwellers who have rinsed all the hippies except…Robert! that having been said; some of their MPs might be cool to hang out with in an aforementioned urban cafe!

PartisanZ

Tipene, if Ghahraman is a textbook case, so is every other politician …

A notable textbook case would be our former Prime Minister, John Key.

Lurcher is quite correct. Narcissism, like other so-called psychological disorders, is actually a narcissism-altruism spectrum or gradient upon which we all sit … Everybody is more or less narcissistic …

PartisanZ

Hands up those who honestly thought the Greens were any different from the other *Parties*? I didn’t, and I’m supposedly a Radical Lefty …

Yes, its dead simple. It might be “unsavoury” but it certainly isn’t indefensible. Compared to other politician’s ‘scandals’, all the way down to ponytails and a bar of soap, at the very root of all this – the actions taken in her former profession – Ghahraman did right, whereas the others did wrong.

They’ll learn from it, rest assured. And like all other Pollies, they will not admit to having learned from it … Gosh …

Ray

Well Robert thinks the Greens are very different which I guess just proves where he and you come from. The rest of us see a party that loves to take the high ground but can be just as mendacious as any other when push comes to shove.

Mendacious the Greens ain’t, Ray, no matter how much you and others here wish it to be so; not even approaching the league of National’s hideous crew, peresent and past. It would suit you and your ilk, to believe The Greens are politicians cut from the same cloth as Bennett, English, Key and Bridges, but they are not – it’s always been the defining characteristic of The Greens that they don’t indulge in that nasty side of politics and it is still true. I can see that liars and confidence tricksters benefit from convincing the general public that “all politicians are the same” but they are not.

robertguyton

It is, PartizanZ, unless you enter the fray well-armed against the taint and well supported by others whose mission it is to resist. The Greens are such people. Naturally, there will be mistakes and slip-ups made, but in my view, of all parties, The Greens have managed the issue best. The National Party MP’s on the whole, have shown the converse.

PartisanZ

robertguyton – The fray which doesn’t need to be a fray? We could reform and recreate the whole damned thing!? The Swiss Parliament is a coalition of ALL the major parties, representing about 98% of voters.

robertguyton

phantom snowflake

An interesting little exchange on twitter; take from it what you will…

Lew‏ @LewSOS
Nov 29
Righty blokes hounded Metiria out of office on trumped-up outrage about historical indiscretions that she did a poor job of explaining. Righty blokes tried to hound Golriz out of office for same. Coincidence or trend? One more will tell us.

Tat Loo‏ @Tat_Loo
Replying to @LewSOS @GregAFC and

Metiria told half the story to the public and was found out. Gloriz told half the story to the public and was found out. Coincidence or trend? One more will tell us.
,

PartisanZ

sorethumb

Being attacked because the target of criticism is female or non-European or an immigrant or whatever has become common in New Zealand political forums, and it’s crap.
…..
People are ethnocentric by nature. It has been shown to be moderated by oxytocin. Therefore, when they attack us for racism how do we know they aren’t racist/ethnocentric.
Gloriz complained she was made to feel she wasn’t Kiwi enough, meaning she isn’t happy being adopted she wants the old identity wiped out (in our own country) and it’s crap.

phantom snowflake

“People are ethnocentric by nature. It has been shown to be moderated by oxytocin” Bullshit pseudoscientific justification for the racial segregation you have always promoted. My community includes at least a dozen ethnicities; many of us intermingle happily and share aspects of our culture, languages and food. And yes some of them are Mooooslims! Your “White Nationalism” is a complete non-starter here in Aotearoa, the southern tip of the Polynesian Triangle.

sorethumb

sorethumb

2017
Weighing up the value of ethnic diversity alongside the volume of immigration to Auckland’s character and its future prosperity is a vexed and complex issue – one that is top of mind for many who dwell in the country’s sprawling metropolis, according to a new report by Massey University sociologists.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1705/S00470/immigration-and-the-future-in-super-diverse-auckland.htmThe attitudes of New Zealanders in the mid-1990s towards immigration may not have reflected the positive perspective on the value of diversity in our society that is contained in the Review of
Immigration Policy August 1986. But this does not mean that the globalisation of immigration to New Zealand was an “unintended consequence of policy changes in 1986”. It was a deliberate strategy, based on a premise that the “infusion of new elements to New Zealand life has been of immense value to the development of this country to date and will, as a result of this Government’s review of immigration policy, become even more important in the future” (Burke 1986:330).
Immense value to vexed and complex issue.

Young women of Latin and Turkish origin living in Melbourne find it hard to see any Australian culture. Some see a vacuum; others see a bland milieu populated with ‘average-looking’ people. In contrast, they feel that their own migrant cultures are strong. They ‘get through more’. If there is any Australian culture it is, in their opinion, losing ground to migrant cultures.https://zuleykazevallos.com/2012/10/06/its-like-were-their-culture/

Vahed and Vahed’s paper indicates that advocates for Muslim communities are taking advantage of Western multiculturalism, in which the state licenses minority interests while ignoring those of the majority. According to multicultural ideology, only minorities have legitimate interests, while the majority is portrayed as in need of policing due to its alleged aggression against minorities.14
State licensing includes indoctrination of the majority in the legitimacy of minority preferences,
without balancing instruction in majority interests

sorethumb

I know this pisses Pete George off but policy today has been built on exclusion. Evolutionary psychology is on the up. The thing is adopting people who aren’t like you into NZ “your country” is one thing – everyone loves the smiling mecanic from Zimbabwe, but a society based on equal mixes of a variety of ethnicities is another, unless you can show the benefits at all levels of society.

PDB

PartisanZ

You are unbelievable PDB … When was the last time you ‘changed your mind’ about something? I cited an example of my doing so the other day.

At least my safe place isn’t a mind closed like a steel trap.

To paraphrase phantom_snowflake’s awesome writer Laurie Penny,

“I’ve got no time for YOUR sort of strength. Not now, not ever. Give me courage instead, the courage to remain permeable, to remain open, the potential for empathy and learning. Make me brave—I don’t care about strong”.

sorethumb

“Social cohesion expert” Professor Paul Spoonley says the key to social cohesion is contact but the opposite is competition for resources. On Smart Talk at the Auckland Museum he asks (regarding migrants with lots of wealth arriving): “but how do they loose from that. How is anyone loosing?” [hint- housing – hand going up at auction]. So where are the benefits? Real wage rates in tourism and hospitality have fallen 24.5% between 1979 and 2006. “It’s our second largest pie” -Mike Hosking.

sorethumb

phantom snowflake
Evolutionary Biology is a crock; it’s mechanistic and reductive and sucks meaning from any topic it considers, thereby subtracting from rather than adding to our human “body of knowledge.”

sorethumb

Evolutionary Biology is a crock; it’s mechanistic and reductive and sucks meaning from any topic it considers, thereby subtracting from rather than adding to our human “body of knowledge.”
…………..
That depends on whether we are born with a blank slate or with software on the harddrive

sorethumb

Metiria told half the story to the public and was found out. Gloriz told half the story to the public and was found out. Coincidence or trend? One more will tell us
….
Gareth Hughes unfurled a protest banner at Tiananmen Square (but didn’t get a photo?)
Keeth Locke grinned with pleasure as Anette Sykes spoke of her joy at the World Trade centre collapsing “until she remembered the bell boys etc” Keith Locke denies it some libertarians in the audience reported it. His words against theirs.

Blazer

sorethumb

That is true about Gareth Hughes. The fact that I can’t locate it on the web means nothing. I can’t locate Catherine Delahunty’s maiden speech either.
…………….
Frog, I agree the slur on your drug law reform plocy is as inaccurate as it is stupid, but you said. “Which terrorist groups are the Greens in favour of? Go on. Name just one.” Very well, let me open the batting. How about this, Frog:
Remember soon after September 11 Keith Locke spoke at a meeting in Rotorua on a platform with Annette Sykes. This was a meeting to protest the liberation of Afghanistan.
As Keith sat there smiling and nodding his head in agreement, Sykes told the audience: “I will never forget that morning turning on my TV and seeing those planes fly into those two towers, I jumped for joy, I was so excited to see that at long last capitalism was
under attack. I was laughing, I was so happy, but then I saw those people
jumping out of the windows and it suddenly hit me, oh those poor waiters, the poor cleaners, those poor lift operators, who the greedy capitalists had employed to do all the dirty jobs were probably the people jumping out of the windows.”
Keith neither challenged nor questioned Sykes’ rant, he sat there and smiled and nodded and then led the applause when she finished.http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/05/31/united-in-terrorism/

Gezza

lurcher1948

I don’t think Duncan Garner will be getting a xmas card from GG or another interview and why we are at it Jack Tame will not be getting a card or interview from our PM Jacinda Adern, after months of requesting contact for a chat they will wonder what they did wrong, Blackballed before.getting started with a new govt.

Gezza

Not being interviewed by Jack Tame imo is much the same as not being interviewed by a 5 year old at a kids birthday party who’s watching a clown make sausage dogs out of tube balloons at the same time. It’s like missing something unimportant that never even happened. I’m open to being persuaded otherwise, but I reckon you’ll struggle.

robertguyton

PDB

Is the photo description not factual?
What are your alternate facts?
Why is no one else smiling in the photo?
Is it something to do with the seriousness of the subject matter at hand?
Why is Ghahraman Golriz smiling?

Blazer

your statement is incorrect..’ Green MP Ghahraman Golriz beaming from ear to ear whilst volunteering to defend alleged perpetrators & inciters of genocide, mass rape, torture, massacre of children & the mutilation of the vagina with machetes, …’ this is not an accurate description of that…photo…

PDB

chrism56

That unusual for you isn’t it Blazer “we need to be 100% accurate when you are impugning someones character” You are quite happy to make stuff up and libel people with false quotes (remember Ms Bennett’s shoes) with reckless abandon if you think they are on the other side.

Blazer

Gezza

Someone has to defend them PDB. In a fair trial. Going down the path that she shouldn’t be ever have been a defending attorney isn’t really a valid criticism of a lawyer. How do you know she isn’t smiling because she’s just hacked into the prosecutions defence strategy document?

Strikes me as someone who likes to smile at any camera, and ask for a copy. Like a celebrity does.

If it is a crime to gain “pecuniary advantage” by falsifying facts, surely obtaining an MP’s pay is pecuniary advantage?

That’s pathetic.

If an MP could be dumped because an opposing party or Whale Oil or The Daily Blog found something in their bio or on line utterings or campaign claptrap that wasn’t 100% accurate or complete we wouldn’t have a Parliament

Gezza

I expect if the same were true of what they post on their blogs we wouldn’t have WO or TDB either. Claims on most blogs are sometimes very selective, lacking full context, & open to more interpretations just than the particular one presented by the biased writer.